Talk:Natural landscape

	This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Urban studies and planning Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is good to see an article like this being started up, and edited and improved by studies on the subject of human geography, BUT accepting and acknowledging Wikipedia's content is expected to be 'enclopedic' in nature (see

Regarding 'synthesis' warned, on quick reading it does not seem the only reference in the section tagged, ie reference to the European Landscapes Convention, is accurately represented , and the remainder of the commentary and conclusions are unreferenced and unverificable, so it is no therefore possible to know if it is a fair and neutral report on the nature of debates surrounding the European Landscapes Convention?! Bruceanthro (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is much work yet to do with the meaning of the natural landscape. It will be difficult to get references on a subject avoided for so long. In the USA especially the term has been avoided or has been used in such a cavalier way. For example, in the USA the word environment has been corrupted to mean only environmentally friendly.

It is interesting that landscaping and such business friendly terms were defined, yet many "experts" were reluctant to define natural landscape. However, yes, that is no excuse for a poorly written item. I shall do my best to correct the flaws as soon as possible.

Rstafursky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstafursky (talk • contribs) 02:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noting link to European Landscapes Convention has been removed, I've removed 'synthesis tag'. Although one addition web reference has been added .. this article still needs to be (re)written in a more encyclopedic manner! I will tag it as such, and hope you agree?! Bruceanthro 00:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued upgrading. Added categories.Rstafursky (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is reprinted here from Talk:Nature Wilderness vs natural landscape In nature, the concept of natural landscape has evolved from art into something else. Chunglin Kwa, Alexander von Humboldt's invention of the natural landscape, The European Legacy, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 149-162, 2005 point this out quite clearly. Wilderness, I think, is a very static word. Unlike natural landscape, wilderness seems not to be in conflict with our culture. By conflict I mean juxtaposition with a non-wilderness for which there is no such expression. In addition, wilderness has to be explained. It is not self evident. Natural landscape is like the word nature or natural by itself. It is self-evident. The ordinary person knows when a place once again is or is under natural controls and processes. Thus nature, the subject of this page, benefits from being broken down into human and non-human or, if you will, natural and not natural. Wilderness is also misleading in the fact that it causes one to dream of wild things ... vicious things. However, there are many landscapes both macro and micro that give no indication of being vicious. But, natural landscape can encompass these innocuous places quite easily. Can one look through a microscope at and see the calm landscape of a quartz crystal facet and say "what a wilderness"? I don't think so. Yet one can say "look how the silicon atoms have arranged themselves in a marvelous natural landscape." All I am saying is that natural landscape is very useful term and is a natural extension of nature.Rstafursky (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1857) probably never imagined that the world would become crowded, that the forests would be burned so systematically and that humans would eat many species into extinction. It was just that the world seemed too enormous at the time and people were of little issue to it. He also probably could not have conceived of anyone's wanting to return a place to natural landscape controls. What reason could anyone have had in doing this when there was always another and another natural landscape ripe for adventure. I guess what I am saying is that the evolution of the idea of a natural landscape came on gradually in Humboldt's, time and it had its high watermark of sorts. However, today the concept goes beyond Humboldt. One cannot think of the natural landscape without dropping the other shoe. One is compelled to finish the sentence. One is compelled to state the obvious ... that all places altered or polluted by human activity can return. Return to what? Return to the sole control of natural forces and processes. They can once again become a part of the natural landscape, or at least a varient of the natural landscape, but the natural landscape none the less.Rstafursky (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I now see better where you (Rstafursky) stand. But isn't this a too personal interpretation of a natural landscape -- especially the idea that a landscape can be microscopic. Re wilderness being 'vicious' I can understand that. As someone born in Southern England but living in North America I'm intimidated by the landscape here, especially because on this continent bears and cougars are part of the natural landscape. But a natural landscape is also a wilderness. Cynically I'm beginning to suspect that the phrase natural landscape has become/is becoming a euphemism for wilderness, and that this has been created by tourist boards, and other bureaucratic agencies, to increase visitor figures. Nature is vicious as any one living through a Canadian winter knows. You need more solid evidence to support this highly idiosyncratic definition of a natural landscape (and therefore by implication nature and natural). Rwood128 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The wilderness is an aspect of nature, so that it cannot have human traits like viciousness. What you are saying in effect seems to me is that some human beings do not like, find vicious, certain aspects of the wilderness/nature. An example could be the polar bears and frigid temperatures of the far north of North America.

Re macro and micro landscapes. The following is a metaphorical use of landscape: 'the calm landscape of a quartz crystal facet', that is a photo of a this facet is like a landscape (painting). A similar example might be to refer to 'the picturesque landscape of the Orion Nebula. This article is about landscape as geography.

I'm also beginning to wonder about this dualism, of the natural and cultural (though it may be useful to geographers). Aren't people part of nature? We just build bigger dams than beavers, who also radically alter landscape. Don't creatures also have culture, in that they in their own way shape landscape. Also, while global warming, Ebola, war, etc are not good, at least from a human perspective, they are natural. Rwood128 (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A natural landscape can be of any size. It can be microscopic as in an image of life on the surface of a rock or it can be macroscopic as in any expanse as seen through a telescope. When the Earth is viewed from just outside our atmosphere the natural landscape can be said to be the entire image of the Earth's surface. The equilibrium that the Earth forces and processes have dynamically achieved over millennia has been referred to as natural law or Wild_law,Law of the Rights of Mother Earth. As is the case with all disturbances within a natural landscape the entire Earth's natural landscape can be considered as self correcting not in any spiritual way, but in a purely natural way. Rstafursky (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have had a contribution implying that natural landscaping is an example of physical alteration. It should be noted that all human alteration, whether intended or not intended (e.g invasive species), does introduce human control and force that disturb the natural equilibrium of a place. It is sometimes difficult to judge whether or not the interference is intended to speed up correction or to offer a new solution. One has to be careful with a new solution delivered by people such as landscapers and ecologists acting in good faith. The biological and geological landscape has had millions, if not billions, of years to chance upon solutions that last. Therefor, human modification should not be done based on a hunch or even a scientific epiphany, if you will. On the other hand, well planned removal of human things is seldom wrong.

For another example, be aware that many specialist will advocate replacement of a brownfield site (aka contaminated soil) with development (e.g. a landscaped campus) rather than removing all human influences and things and then returning the place to total natural forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstafursky (talk • contribs) 19:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a long hiatus we have been confronted by one who seems intent on replacing entire sections on the notion that a natural landscape does not exists. Yet it is clear that if the natural landscape ceased to function on its own the Earth would come to an end and so far it has not. The contributor's recent appearance seems to be focused on unreferenced material. That is always a problem with encyclopedic articles so we will double or efforts to make proper corrections. The nature of the natural landscape is really very simple. I ask all of you to help the public to understand this really vary simple term. Rstafursky (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since all the edits are refernced to multiple peer reviewed articles, they will remain until you can find some legitimate grounds to remove them. Ad hominem attacks on my motivation are NOT legitimate. Mark Marathon (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off subject, natural landscaping is not the same as natural landscape. It is easy to confuse the two. Rstafursky (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody confusing the two? I certainly am not.Mark Marathon (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read Mark's comment. I have made no ad hominem attacks on Mark (he used the plural for of attack). 71.233.41.122 (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Rstafursky (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I will look at your references again and we may actually use some of them, but please do not delete solid references from Natural landscape by removing entire paragraphs. Thank you for your interest. 71.233.41.122 (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Rstafursky (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, during one day October 11 you have made the same repeated whole paragraph removal. You have done this exact same edit three (3) time on this same day. If you have grievances Wikipedia provides mediation. Please use that resource. An edit "war" helps no one. Rstafursky (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have anything to actually discuss on this subject, I am eager to do so. All you have provided so far are ad hominem assertions concerning my beliefs and motivations. When you are able to explain why you have persistently reverted my well-referenced additions ot the article, then we will have something to discuss. Until then, you are giving me nothing to discuss and are simply edit warring. I can assure you, continuing this behaviour will lead to your account being blocked. Please do not push it to that level.Mark Marathon (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I'm sure your method is not how Wikipedia intended articles to be created and maintained. I am looking into mediation. That involves a third party. You are now threatening to block the account. I do not believe that Wikipedia looks kindly on threats and edit "wars" which you have started and to which I have reacted. Please reconsider any impulsive actions. Rstafursky (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Wiki editors who might be reading Talk:Natural landscape. If someone wishes to add or delete references it is up to them to give cause. Reference to peer revue alone is not cause. Special interest peer reviewed publications are numerous, but many are bias and many can be discarded out of hand following discussion. Others are easy to misquote or take out of context (especially government publications), because they define terms specifically for that publication. NATURAL LANDSCAPE is an important term and we must not corrupt it or allow it to be watered down by special interests. Natural landscape has a clear meaning and a simple history going back several hundred years. I reference this in the Wikipedia article, but in a nutshell what we see is the natural landscape on one extreme and the cultural landscape on the other. Resource managers (who wish to employ their own terminologies) would want us to believe that the natural landscape end of the spectrum contains cultural features. This is not edifying. Rstafursky (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I repete my offer to discus your contributions. Rstafursky (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I repeat: If you have anything to actually discuss on this subject, I am eager to do so. So far you have given us nothing to discuss. You persistently refuse to discuss your claim that my additions are somehow "off-topic", whatever that means. Your claim that the material is unreferenced is obvious nonsense, since there are multiple references provided, but if you want to discuss that then by all means, explain how additions with references to reputable journals and texts is unreferenced. I will not discuss your aspersions concerning what my intentions made be since they clearly do not assume good faith. Beyond that, you have given us nothing to discuss because you have not given any reason why you persist in reverting my additions. When you provide even a single point that can be discussed, I will eagerly discuss this with you. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stafursky's 1 - 6 proposed for deletion by Mark

Mark's 1 - 4 proposed to add by Mark

We will focus first on those references that have been on this page for a very long time.

FIRST LINK:

A natural landscape is a

ACTIONS: [6] will replace the link from Ferdinands of AU (above) and

"The cultural landscape is fashioned from a natural landscape by a culture group. Culture is the agent, the natural area is the medium, the cultural landscape the result.", Sauer, Carl O, "Morphology of Landscape" In Oakes, T. and Price, P. (eds) 2008; The Cultural Geography Reader, p. 103. Routledge

will be added as a reference.

SECOND LINK:

A natural landscape is intact when all living and nonliving elements are free to move and change.^[1] Rstafursky (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Irwin link is valid, but there are no page numbers a minor point. Rstafursky (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THIRD LINK:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/cele/2005/00000010/00000002/art00002 Good link, but wilderness only with life link needed. Rstafursky (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Added link from Wilderness Society (US) Rstafursky (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LINK . . . added link ref living and nonliving [7] "All that determines the character of a landscape—the outline of the mountains, which, in the far-vanishing distance, bound the horizon—the dark shade of the pine forests—the sylvan torrent rushing between overhanging cliffs to its fall—all are in antecedent, mysterious communion with the inner feelings and life of man." Aspects of Nature, Alexander von Humboldt, Translated by Mrs. Sabine, Philadelphia, Lea and Blanchard, 1850, Volume l0, Cataracts of the Orinoco Rstafursky (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Updated Rolston link Rstafursky (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LINKS . . . now checking the four citations offered by Mark. None have www links. This may take some time . . . Rstafursky (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Links reviewed were papers by resource managers, commercial landscapers and urban planners. Rstafursky (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historically there has been two giant leaps with the idea of a natural landscape. First, it began to occur to people that the natural landscape was separate from the cultural landscape. Evidently, it just never occurred to naturalists that this was the case or at least they never saw a need to use precise language. The next leap was in clearly defining what it was that was separate from the cultural landscape. Apparently people just "knew" what nature was, but not to worry, now there is lots of thinking on this subject. More on this . . . Rstafursky (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Satoyama is an excellent physical and biological landscape descriptor. Cultural/natural landscape mixes need not be Western types. I have placed it in See Other, however, it could be placed in paragraph one as a ref.

Rewilding is a philosophy with a human purpose. A returned natural landscape is a result. Rstafursky (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help. Mark Marathon is deleting entire paragraphs again without submitting substitutions. He apparently is trying to question material that no one else has objected to in the long history of Natural landscape.

Specifically, I need help on how to proceed in the proper sections (such as Talk:Natural landscape). I have to re-educate myself on Wiki protocol. Natural landscape is important concept and it certainly can be improved, but the paucity of editors for this underutilized term should not be the kiss of death. Rstafursky (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Marathon is attempting to change the meaning of natural landscape so that it include cultural or built activity which is the opposite of the meaning of natural. I strongly suggest that Mark Marathon use the Talk:Natural landscape (section) rather than deleting entire paragraphs. I will look at each submission as I did last time. In the meantime I will replace the entire affected text. Rstafursky (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rstafursky, can you please explain why you deleted well referenced material from the lede of this article. Thank you Mark Marathon (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rstafursky,I notice that you have further reverted my edits since I initiated this discussion. To draw your attention to this talk page, I will now restore my edits. Please discuss your changes. Mark Marathon (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is landscape first. There are at least two types of landscapes recognized, but all are landscapes. Landscapes are what is "seen." Natural landscape is the natural part of the landscape. Cultural landscape is the cultural part of the Landscape. Any one landscape may have (and often does have) both. That means one can always see each in the same landscape. The presence of culture in a landscape does not erase the natural landscape portion present and the presence of natural landscape in a landscape does not erase the cultural landscape part present in that unique landscape. I have looked at your references and they all are discussions of composite landscapes, if you will.

I think you are speaking simply of mixed

I will be glad to correct any errors on Natural landscape, but modifications must focus on the [Natural] rather than the mixed landscapes.

Selective references and deletions used for the purpose of changing the meaning of natural in Natural landscape are unacceptable. Rstafursky (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All current references are being reviewed. Special attention will be given to the the eighteenth, nineteenth and even twentieth century meanings that underlay descriptions of natural landscape when used. The word

" Areas that may be confused with natural landscape include parks for people, agricultural areas, orchards, maintained views (use of aesthetic judgments), artificial lakes, managed forests, golf courses, nature center trails, back yards, and flower beds.[11]" --- bad link identified Rstafursky (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for better references. Rstafursky (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following excellent reference should be read by all. I'm am sure we can use it for a number of citations soon. https://www.scribd.com/doc/248164983/Developing-a-Forest-Naturalness-Indicator-for-Europe Rstafursky (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Europe seems to focus on the percentage of “naturalness” and they have developed a “concept and methodology for a high nature value (HNV) forest indicator.” It appears that naturalness and natural landscape are the same. That is because every landscape has a percentage of original or returned nature in that landscape. The difference is in the use of naturalness. It seems to be used when the landscape is a surprisingly mixed cultural/natural landscape or when methodical landscape research is being done. On the other hand, natural landscape is more general and is a more proletariate term and is used more in countries that have lots of nearly pristine landscape. Naturalness assumes an expected small percentage of nature while natural landscape assumes an expected huge percentage of nature. In other words is the glass half empty (naturalness) or half full (natural landscape). Europe has lost most of its original forest and grasslands so no wonder they look for an measure small percentages of naturalness.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/248164983/Developing-a-Forest-Naturalness-

Indicator-for-Europe European Environment Agency Developing a forest naturalness indicator for Europe Concept and methodology for a high nature value (HNV) forest indicator 2014 — 60 pp. — 21 x 29.7 cm

Note: The link to European Environment Agency document above requires a subscription. A free copy is available at [8]. See also the related (i.e. EU shaped) Scottish site [9], though here the terms wilderness and "natural space" predominate, rather than "natural landscape". Rwood128 (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment "It appears that naturalness and natural landscape are the same", see the Scottish Heritage web site that I've added to the External links. They use the term naturalness, but also wild and wilderness. Their approach might be seen as too influenced by the idea of wilderness, but all the same their maps seems to reflect, what I see, as your approach to this subject. I'd be interested in your comments, if you have the time.Rwood128 (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of adding something on Wilderness/Natural landscape/John Muir to Landscape. Rwood128 (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The terms wilderness and natural landscape seem to me to be synonyms and neither article clearly articulates the difference, which is claimed on the respective Talk pages (the term natural landscape is not even mentioned on the wilderness page and the word wilderness is mentioned just once (without discussion) in this article). Furthermore the article 'Natural landscape' doesn't sufficiently address the fact that there is no longer any natural landscape -- at least on the surface of the earth -- and that this has been the case at least since the Industrial Revolution. The same, of course, applies to the term wilderness. Though there are other (different/imprecise) uses of the term wilderness to describe certain areas by tourist boards and government agencies, etc, e.g.:

"The East Coast Trail is a coastal hiking experience that takes you to the outermost reaches of North America. This wilderness hiking trail provides hikers with a special blend of wilderness adventure, outstanding natural beauty, wildlife, history, and cultural contact.^[2]

There is often probably a confusion between wild landscape and wilderness/natural landscapes. The lede in both article needs to better explain (in concrete terms not abstractions) why two two separate articles are needed. Rwood128 (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rstafursky following on from the comments above, a search of how the term 'natural landscape' is used on Wikipedia reveals that it is generally used in reference to National Parks, e.g.:

There are seven national parks in Austria. These

valleys

.

That is for a landscape where human activity is restricted and controlled, However this is not "a landscape that is unaffected by human activity" but rather a landscape where the impact of human activity is limited. In that it is managed as a park it is perhaps not a true wilderness, but that word is also used for National Parks:

the Torngat Mountains have been home to Inuit and their predecessors for thousands of years. The spectacular wilderness of this National Park comprises 9,700 km2 of the Northern Labrador Mountains natural region.[My emphasis]

Sometimes, at least, it seems that a natural landscape = a wilderness. This article does not clearly articulate this fact or the difference between the two terms that is implied. Rwood128 (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rstafursky, my apologies for jumping the gun. I was in fact considering suggesting a merge with wilderness, as I still cannot fully see why two separate articles are needed. However, I do see that two two terms have a different history and that the terms cultural/natural landscape are from the discipline of Geography.

Am I right in thinking that a 'natural landscape'

• (1) Can be a wilderness?
• (2) Can be smaller than a wilderness? --but the 'wilderness article' (see lede) indicates that a wilderness can be small. Is this true?
• (3) Can be within an urban area? -- according to the 'wilderness article' (lede) a wilderness can be within an urban area.
• (4) Can you supply 'some examples' of 'natural landscapes' that are not 'wildernesses'?
• (5) Is a natural landscape an 'original landscape', and how does Otto Schlüter, who coined this term, Urlandschaft (transl. original landscape), fit into the discussion? (see the Cultural landscape page.).

There are other questions but I'll try and keep things as simple as possible to avoid confusion (I note that you avoid using the word wilderness, in your response of 31 January: why?). I have downloaded a few relevant articles and will try and read them in the next few days.

By the way I now realize that the Scottish Cairngorms is a poor example, but it was in a citation already on the page. Rwood128 (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re the words natural and naturalness, and the EU document mentioned by you above, have you seen this EU document on wilderness? Guidelines on Wilderness in Natura 2000 Rwood128 (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the following revision acceptable?

In his writings about his extensive travels in South America, Alexander von Humboldt became the first to use the term cultural landscape.^[4][5][6]

• First, the sentence is grammatically incomplete.
• Second, didn't the concept of nature, as distinct from mankind, already exist? (See OED for example). By the way I couldn't find either term in the book by Humbold that's cited. Can you provide a direct quotation? The phrase 'natural landscape' was already being used by
  landscape gardeners
  .
• Third, the citations need tidying, and it would be better to format the additional material/quotations as proper notes rather than references.

Hope this is helpful in improving the article. Rwood128 (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The concept of 'cultural landscapes' can be found in the European tradition of

Cultural landscapes article]. Rwood128 (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Rwood128, I'll try to review your helpful entries on Humboldt. Rstafursky (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rwood128 Your contributions are appreciated very much. Please keep in mind that wilderness and natural landscape are very different. A landscape is a view by people. If there are cultural features and natural features viewed in a landscape there is a name of that. It is called a mixed landscape, but never a natural landscape. Parks and other human controlled landscapes are mixed landscapes. It is photographically possible to identify and sort out the cultural things and it is photographically possible to identify and tease out the natural things. It is then possible to say that a particular landscape is such an such a percentage natural and such a percentage cultural. This sort of thing is done with biodiversity such as a place has x-percent of the original biodiversity. This could be a purely visual judgement (as in the case of a landscape) or it could be detailed ground truthing.

The natural landscape is what one sees and not what one wants to see. If European park managers, tree plantation managers or any others who manage a landscape wish to deceive themselves and pretend in public that their particular place is natural (when in fact it is only partly natural) then, at best, they are deceiving themselves and, at worst, they are liars. The latter are those stakeholders who have a money or property interest in a claim of naturalness. Europe has been decimated by the indigenous people for hundreds of thousands of years. The Americas have been decimated by indigenous people for only tens of thousands of years. Wikipedia contributors must not distort the meaning of natural or natural landscape simply by changing the meaning of words by resource people. We cannot commercial and institutional interests to use stolen terminology. See http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#stolen . The word nature and its derivatives does not and never will mean the opposite in part or in whole (aka cultural).

I object to the use of the word decimated here. People cause harm to natural landscapes but we cannot go back to being hunter gatherers. Farming is natural and man made landscapes, cultural landscapes can be beautiful (but this article emphasizes biology not aesthetics). You seem to be espousing, in the name of natural landscape, a philosophy that is very similar to the wilderness myth, what Michael Pollan criticizes in Second Nature. There he argues that the wilderness ethic leads people to dismiss areas whose wildness is less than absolute. so that "once a landscape is no longer 'virgin' it is typically written off as fallen, lost to nature, irredeemable." Rwood128 (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please de-emphsize wilderness (unlike landscape, it is not a view) and please do not mix natural with cultural (simply because some people are sloppy or prefer that their people look at their parks through rose colored glasses.

Rwood128, I cannot match the sheer volume of your good efforts in updating natural landscape. I first submitted a definition of natural landscape, because it is an important term that got little attention. I restore natural landscapes. I do not manage wildlife or the wilderness. Rstafursky (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you do is irrelevant in an encyclopaedia. The above is confusing, because wildlife is surely part of a natural landscape. Do you really mean that there should be no management/restoration with a natural landscape? That would make better sense.Rwood128 (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rwood128 (1) Please remove the majority of "wild" reference. Wilderness has its own page. In the beginning I too had included wilderness in natural landscape only to remove it myself a few years later. The natural landscape is a landscape, but wilderness is not. Wild animals can be part of the natural landscape if they are seen in the viewer or as in the old days painted into the view. Animals within a landscape are not required for natural landscape designation. I think we can leave wilderness as an See also reference. (2) We need to return Rachel Carson's reference to the natural landscape as a view. I have seen some of your other many contributions to Wikipedia pages and I am very impressed. You are an outstanding researcher. 71.233.41.122 (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Rstafursky (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rstafursky your comments are interesting, though I don't fully understand them.

In particulat I do not understand your use of 'view', as in 'A landscape is a view by people' (the sentence seems to be incomplete). Do you mean something seen by people? Also what does 'wilderness is not a view' mean? (again if would help if the sentence was fuller, i.e but a wilderness is ….) You need to more clearly explain the difference that you see between a natural landscape and a wilderness. How does your definition of a wilderness differ from that in a dictionary? Hope this is helpful and not too pedantic – I would like to understand your point of view. Rwood128 (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK: the natural landscape 'is spread before us like the pages of an open book' (Rachel Carson). But this doesn't really help me understand how a natural landscape can differ from a wilderness. A wilderness is an "uncultivated and uninhabited region'". Isn't that a natural landscape? The quotation doesn't help, and perhaps a fuller discussion of Carson's ideas are needed (though not obviously in the lede).Rwood128 (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant Frances Moore Lappe and not Carson Rstafursky (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC) No it is is Carson. Rstafursky (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rwood128 Please do not start an edit war. Please reconsider deviation from the obvious meaning of nature. Please use the Landscape page to introduce cultural features. Please use this talk page before you make changes, deletions and additions. Please adhere to Wikipedia etiquette. Rstafursky (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rwood128 Ok, my mistake. You moved Carson's block-quote to the first paragraph where view has greater prominence as it should. Rstafursky (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't make it clear – at least to me – the significance of this quotation. Probably you know it, and Carson's work as a whole, too well to realize that some discussion is needed. Rwood128 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rstafursky I'm a little confused – should some (most) of the above have been deleted?

What are you thoughts on the term wilderness? Rwood128 (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Rwood128 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an anthropologist, but I know there was a Stone Age, then a Copper Age etc. I don't think that geologists or anthropologists who find a flint or some other manufactures stone tool in a geologic would say, "this flint is part of the natural landscape." They would say, "This flint is found in this layer, but it is not natural." All artifacts from any of the the cultural Ages of Man cannot be part of the natural landscape. Indigenous people are at least at the Stone Age, so their presence both today and in pre-history, can clearly be discerned as not part of the natural landscape. Rstafursky (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is just that Stone Age man had a pretty minimal impact on the landscape. Neither you nor I, probably, would not be able to see the difference between natural flint and flint tool. The idea of dividing the Earth into a Natural landscape, that is all of creation but for man, and Cultural landscape, that part of the landscape that is created by human beings, is surely just an abstraction created by Geographers. However useful these concepts are, in fact human beings are part of nature as a whole. At the risk of being perverse, isn't shaping a tool from a flint just as natural for a human being, as for a beaver to build a dam (an artifact)? And is culture just a human thing?

Please let me know if you disagree with anything that I've added. Rwood128 (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of adding the following to the section 'Origins', which expands on the lede (as some clarification is badly needed):

The terms natural landscape and wilderness are often used as synonyms even though they have a different origin and cultural history. A natural landscape is a landscape unaffected by human activity, whereas a wilderness is similarly defined as a natural environment on the Earth that has not been significantly modified by human activity.^{[note 1]} Likewise while the opposite of a natural landscape is a cultural landscape, the opposite of a wilderness is an urban or a cultivated landscape.

In America

used fire extensively to clear the woods, for a variety of purposes.^[11][12]

The idealizing of the idea of the wilderness by the environmental movement, that resulted from such romanticism, has been the subject of criticism in recent years. Historian and President of the American Historical Association William Cronon writes: "wilderness serves as the unexamined foundation on which so many of the quasi-religious values of modern environmentalism rest."^[13] Cronon claims that "to the extent that we live in an urban-industrial civilization but at the same time pretend to ourselves that our real home is in the wilderness, to just that extent we give ourselves permission to evade responsibility for the lives we actually lead."^[14] Similarly Michael Pollan has argued that the wilderness ethic leads people to dismiss areas whose wildness is less than absolute. In his book Second Nature, Pollan writes that "once a landscape is no longer 'virgin' it is typically written off as fallen, lost to nature, irredeemable."

The term natural landscape, however, has had a different cultural history from that of the term wilderness, especially since its adoption by geographers for academic, scientific purposes, and who have paired it with the term cultural landscape. Yet all the same natural is a synonym of wild.^[15]

Note: Some material has been taken from

This is just a first draft. Perhaps you can make any revisions that you feel are needed are needed. The final paragraph especially probably needs expanding. I'm also wondering whether we are speaking the same language. Previously, editing the alley article, I discovered that the word alley had quite different connotations for many North Americans than for me. Rwood128 (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Revisions. Rwood128 (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to the idea of a landscape returning "to its original natural state". is this really possible without human intervention given the presence of alien or invasive species in many places? This certainly seems to be the case in North America. Rwood128 (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about all the plant and animal species that have been transported by human beings throughout human history to other parts of the world? There are many, and we don't call those invasive species. There are very few places on earth that have not been impacted in some way by human beings.

talk) 20:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The term alien is apparently applied to an introduced species: "An introduced, alien, exotic, non-indigenous, or non-native species, or simply an introduction, is a species living outside its native distributional range, which has arrived there by human activity, either deliberate or accidental." (Introduced species) Rwood128 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To improve the lede I suggest revising it as follows:

A natural landscape is a

landscape gardening, to contrast a formal style with a more natural one, closer to nature. Alexander von Humboldt (1769 – 1859) was to further conceptualize this into the idea of a natural landscape separate from the cultural landscape. Subsequently the geographer Otto Schlüter, in 1908, argued that by defining geography as a Landschaftskunde (landscape science) would give geography a logical subject matter shared by no other discipline.^[16][17]

He defined two forms of landscape: the Urlandschaft (original landscape) or landscape that existed before major human induced changes and the Kulturlandschaft (cultural landscape) a landscape created by human culture. Schlüter argued that the major task of geography was to trace the changes in these two landscapes.

The term natural landscape is sometimes used as a synonym for wilderness,^{[note 3]} though their histories are different. The term natural landscape (along with the related term cultural landscape) is associated with the science geography, whereas the word wilderness has a different cultural history, one that includes the Bible, the colonization of the Americas and Romanticism.^[18]

Most scientists and conservationists agree that no landscape on earth is completely untouched by humanity, either due to past or current human activity, or through global processes such as climate change and air and water-borne pollution.

Is this acceptable? Rwood128 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The opening statement, that "A natural landscape is the opposite of a cultural landscape" doesn't seem to be exactly correct, if "The cultural landscape is fashioned from a natural landscape by a culture group". And "Culture is the agent, the natural area […] the medium, the cultural landscape the result." Do you follow? Is the following revision acceptable: "A natural landscape is the original landscape that exists before people change it into a cultural landscape." The quotation from Carl O. Sauer can then follow directly, rather than being placed in a note. Rwood128 (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that a cultural landscape obviously retains some elements of the original, natural landscape it isn't an exact opposite.Rwood128 (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about this Rstafursky, to replace the current lede?

A natural landscape is the original landscape that exists before it is acted upon by human culture.^{[note 4]} Most scientists and conservationists agree that no landscape on earth is completely untouched by humanity, either due to past or current human activity, or through global processes such as climate change and air and water-borne pollution. Natural landscape elements, therefore exist to varying degrees within broader cultural landscapes.^[19]

The phrase natural landscape was first used in connection with

landscape gardening, to contrast a formal style with a more natural one, closer to nature. Alexander von Humboldt (1769 – 1859) was to further conceptualize this into the idea of a natural landscape separate from the cultural landscape. Then in 1908 geographer Otto Schlüter developed the terms original landscape (Urlandschaft) and its opposite cultural landscape (Kulturlandschaft) in an attempt to give the science of geography a subject matter that was different from the other sciences. This dualism, however, has its roots is an "ancient concept", because early people viewed "nature, or the nonhuman world […] as a divine Other, godlike in its separation from humans".^[20]

The term natural landscape is sometimes used as a synonym for

geological, climatological and other aspects of a landscape, not the cultural values that are implied by the word wilderness. American geographer William Conron provocatively argues the idea of wilderness is unnatural because it is "the creation of very particular human cultures at very particular moments in human history."^[21] He is referring to the influence of Romanticism and the American frontier myth on the USA idea of wilderness.^[22]

The evolving view that nature and culture cannot be separated also needs to be also considered in this article.

Nowadays, we are beginning to see nature and culture as intertwined once again – not ontologically separated anymore. Today, we could assert that the dichotomy between subject and object, or maybe even nature and culture, does not exist anymore. These entities are not separated, there is an interrelation between them – we could even say a continuum.“What I used to perceive as a compartmentalized world, consisting of neatly and tightly sealed, autonomous ‘space envelopes’ (the home, the city, and nature) was, in fact, a messy socio-spatial continuum” (Kaika, Maria. City of Flows: Modernity, Nature, and the City. New York: Routledge, 2005, p. 4).^[23]

Rstafursky I find your comments the above very confusing. The real problem is that you don't express yourself clearly – or answer my questions – as well as totally misconstrue my motives. The idea that I'm the agent of business interests is laughably absurd.

I'm also interested in what you actually think of the view that the dualism behind the idea of separate natural and cultural landscapes is a fallacy. Surely the dualism that you seem to espouse here – nature separated from culture – is a cause of the environmental destruction that you (and I) oppose? Don't we need to return to a

holistic philosophy? Rwood128 (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Rwood128 It appears that you are interested in an edit war. I do not have the wherewithal to constantly edit your political agenda which clearly is in conflict with proper meaning and many years of natural landscape on Wikipedia, but if this continues I must ask for HELP. This is a shame, because, otherwise, you are a skilled researcher. Rstafursky (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rstafursky, it would have been helpful if you had used the Talk page earlier. I have been very patient in trying to understand your point of view, despite your failure to respond to my questions. What exactly is wrong with my last edit? And what is this political agenda? Rwood128 (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for using the talk page for communications. Each time I used this talk page I tried to signal you (Rwood128), but it did not work that way. As above, I will use your method of signaling a User. I hope it works and your get notice each time. Rstafursky (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rstafursky I have had no problem seeing your responses.

Does these new comments mean that you reject the new lede that I've proposed, or were you unaware of it? You are invited to edit the new draft lede above, though that should not need stating. Comments are also welcome. I am trying to improve a somewhat confusing article and was hoping that you might want to collaborate. Because neither you, nor the article, made it clear what the difference was between wilderness and the highly ambiguous phrase natural landscape, the article left me initially very confused.

Re the difference between cultural and natural in EU photos, I will check this out, but you might be interested in this rather beautiful pictures from the Wilderness article. Would you be able to distinguish the natural from the cultural in this landscape without the caption?

Does the fact that you reply here, indicate that you still think that I'm trying to start an

I originally planned just to use some material from this article for the Landscape page to complement the Landscape#Cultural landscape section, but I now need to better understand the difference between wilderness and the scientific usage of the phrase natural landscape, before I can consider editing the closely related terms, landscape or wilderness. Rwood128 (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This slide show on natural and cultural landscapes may be of interest (supplied by a geographer friend), though it seems to be for school kids: [10]. Rwood128 (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rstafursky, you have suggested that I should "remove all references to specific regions unless these regions are truly representative of the natural". Certainly the sections 'Origins' and 'History' need re-thinking and possibly combining. The examples may need changing, but you must agree that a section on Europe is badly needed, as well as Africa and Asia, etc. The main trouble with the examples is that they don't have a properly developed context. On one hand, for the British Isles the Cairngorms might be a good example of a landscape that has an above average amount of natural landscape. Reference to the South Downs National Park on the other hand should probably be removed, despite this landscape's high scenic, recreational and spiritual value, in a densely populated region. Rwood128 (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rwood128, I just reverted your addition of the Yellowstone example because it seems to me that it introduces undue focus on a detail and throws off the flow of the section. However, on reading the above I may have misunderstood what you are aiming for. Do you intend to expand into further regional examples for other Europe etc.? In that case I could see that finer resolution here is useful. If so, feel free to reinstate :) Elmidae (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, thanks for your helpful comment. I'll think further about this. The article still needs much work. I may simply add a brief reference to wolves and deal with the question of the exclusion of Native Americans elsewhere. My aim is to try and clarify the history of the environmental movement in America, and how the idea of what is natural has changed over time, but I write very much as an outsider and any guidance is much appreciated. I hope something on Britain, Europe, etc can be added. Rwood128 (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly seem to know more about the subject than I do, mine was more of a structural assessment :) Depending on eventual coverage of other regions, wolves only may be a good level of detail? Elmidae (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Cairngorms, Rstafursky, I have just skimmed an awful report on the Cairngorms which made me want to delete the reference. It is an appalling example of the influence of marketing on language (could be read as parody!). Furthermore the Report describes the grouse moors as natural, even though they are managed with fire to help the birds – no the wealthy hunters (not locals). I'm now beginning to better understand your use of strong language. The Cairngorms are, despite the bureaucrats, a very beautiful, wild place, but I realize that that is another matter. I will research this further -- note me deletions. See: COMMISSIONED REPORT Summary. The Special Landscape Qualities of the Cairngorms National Park. Commissioned Report No. 375 (iBids and Project no 648) Contractor: SNH project staff. Year of publication: 2010 [11] Rwood128 (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of

So, are we or are we not part of the natural world? I ask everyone doting on this question to review the meaning of equivocation. Another definition of this word can be found at [12]. When one says that man is "part of nature" one must stick to either the first or the second meaning; either (1) the natural laws of the Universe or (2) continued "membership" in good standing with life on this planet. To jump back and fourth between these two completely different meanings is equivocation intended to mislead. Rstafursky (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rstafursky, this is an ideological rant. If you wish to incorporate these ideas into the article, you will need to maintain a more neutral point of view, suitable for an encyclopaedia article and include citations from reputable sources. By the way Humboldt didn't invent natural landscape. Do you mean that he invented the concept? It is such imprecise wording that causes so much confusion, and wasted time, in this article.

There isn't any equivocation but rather a difficulty in pinning down certain slippery words, like natural: " natural is a commonly used word with multiple meanings" (Gregory H. Aplett and David N. Cole, "The Trouble with Naturalness: Rethinking Park and Wilderness Goals" in Beyond Naturalness: Rethinking Park and Wilderness Stewardshio in an Era of Rapid Change (Washington, DC.: Island Press, 2010), p.13). This is a useful book. Rwood128 (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rstafursky,

Re the following sentence, the learned gentlemen in Scotland, whose report I've mentioned, thought a managed grouse moor was a natural landscape!

Today, most people can easily recognize a natural landscape when they see it.^[24]

The phrase natural landscape is ambiguous and is used frequently as a synonym for wilderness, as you know. Yes, it isn't wilderness but that isn't the point. The quotation from Carson is equally imprecise, that is the only reason I deleted it earlier. To someone immersed in the conservation movement, like you, all this is obvious but you aren't most. Maybe a paragraph on Carson might be added elsewhere in the article to discuss her ecological philosophy. The quotation is meaningless without a context or knowledge of the book. Rwood128 (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rstafursky, The following could be expressed better: " People are no more a part of life on this planet than a cancer cell is part of the human body". You let your rhetoric get out of hand. I presume that what you really mean is that the behaviour of some people in the last couple of centuries threatens, like a cancer, to destroy the world. Your reference to half a million years make no sense, unless you believe that nature made a mistake in creating people. Once again that old biblical fall, but in disguise? The cancer metaphor rightly indicates the action of people is threatening to destroy the natural world of which they are a part (cancer cells are created by the body). You cannot say that people are separate from nature, unless you say that our single celled ancestors weren't part of nature, let alone, monkeys, fish, worms, etc. If nature, as you indicate, has the capacity to right itself, it should eventually be able to cope. That is if we don't wake up we'll become extinct. The way you worded this seem to suggest that humanity is totally evil, which you probably don't mean. A cancer isn't evil, its dna is faulty. In our case our physical power exceeds our mental capacity, wilful stupidity rather than evil (no need for Judgement Day, etc). The idea of a natural landscape is an intellectual invention to deal with our alienation from nature, a fiction just as much as the idea of the wilderness is. But one that is more a scientific, biological fiction. Once again it seems to me that the bible stands behind your thinking, just as much as those that you condemn – but that's our Western culture of course. Rwood128 (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to echo these sentiments. The natural/human dichotomy (and the question of whether it IS a dichotomy) is by no means a question that has been solved so clearly that power chords like that 'cancer' phrase are appropriate. (One may feel that way, but deeply held feelings is not what Wikipedia is about.) The article should reflect the history of and current thinking about the topic; and no, current thinking by and large does not categorize humanity as an evil aberration, and human-free landscapes as an intrinsically 'good' base state, deviation from which is ethically 'bad'.

I think the current lead is fine, although I can't say the 3rd sentence seems very appropriate - bit of a non-sequitur, and the Carson quote is poetic but beside the point (of what point there is). I'd much prefer Rwood128's earlier "Natural landscape elements, therefore exist to varying degrees within broader cultural landscapes." Elmidae (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, thanks. I was thinking of seeking your advice re the lede, but had decided to give editor Rstafursky time to respond. I will remove the third sentence which, if correct would be redundant. I certainly have sympathy with Rstafursky strong feelings, which led him to creating this article in 2007.Rwood128 (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be some discussion in this section of the problem of invasive plants and animals. As it reads now the idea seems to be that a landscape will naturally return to its natural state without any management. Also of course, as is mentioned elsewhere, climate change may also mean that a return to any original state is impossible. But Isn't the concept of an original natural landscape an idealistic dream, an invention of people? Rwood128 (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been frowning at this paragraph as well :)

First, it seems to want to talk about what would have to be done to return to a natural state. So maybe it needs another heading. Second, as it reads now, the notion seems too simplistic. In many cases (maybe the majority, this far down the human cultural influence line) just 'leaving alone' won't do the trick, if the target were to get back to a pre-human state. How much sense that idea makes in itself is of course up for debate - which humans? Europeans? the last cultural group that had a major ecological influence, a thousand years earlier? - but assuming for the sake of argument that's where you want to go: frequently you can't get there from here anymore. Large-scale changes like climate shifts; complete extinctions (i.e. no rewilding possible because the species is gone); complex systemic shifts that are beyond our power to retro-engineer, including invasive species that are now firmly integrated into the ecosystem...

An example that comes to mind is New Zealand (which might make a good regional example, actually). Pre-human, a complex ecology where all large terrestrial vertebrate niches were filled by birds. Maoris arrived 13-14th century; within a few centuries, the moas were gone - which means ALL GRAZERS and almost all browsers were gone - and a large percentage of montane forests had been burned and turned into tussock grasslands. That's an irreversible shift right there; the ecosystem components for the previous state don't exist anymore. So, 'naturalness' permanently lost? How about we aim for pre-European? But here we have the opposite problem: dozens of species were introduced that now complete pervade the ecosystem, most prominently rodents and Common brushtail possums. The latter in particular can't currently be eradicated by any realistic measure, nor can they be ignored (or such is the general impression among ecologists, AFAIK) if we don't want to see massive vegetation degradation. Assume we just do the hands-off thing and let things play out on their own: that will eventually leave you with a new equilibrium, but it will be an massively impoverished state compared to prior periods, and dominated by human-introduced species. Are we 'natural' yet? Remove humans from the islands and wait a few thousand years, and the system will have shifted to some new configuration driven by self-introductions and long-term population processes, maybe approximating a pre-European situation. Success? Wait a few million years, and new grazers might have evolved, and maybe the ecology resembles the pre-human state again. Finally made the goal?

I wonder if maybe going for something like a heading "Restoring a natural state" and some discussion of these definition problems might be preferable. Elmidae (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive species are not the issue, unless they can be seen in the landscape. If they are seen and identified then they are the result of cultural "contamination" either intentional or unintentional. The species or of plant or animal itself is natural, but its placement and its appearance is cultural (aka nun-natural) similar to a garden, copse or a lea.

It does not matter how long ago the culturally recognizable situation got started. Both the Maoris and the American Plains "Indians" altered the natural landscape. As landscapes are studied by anthropologists the fog of history evaporates and we can clearly see ancient cultural effects and we say, "that charcoal layer or that mound or that corn plant is not part of the natural landscape [my words]."

Please put back Rachel Carson. She was a scientist who foresaw environmental awareness. She is most certainly part of the popular understanding that the natural landscape is apart from the built landscape. She wrote the most influential nature book of our time. She uses the term natural landscape while other did not. Without Caron as a prim referenced natural landscape would not be encyclopedic completely. Do deny what others have said about Humboldt and his role in defining landscape as natural is to black out history. I gave references for both historical figures.

Reply I think Carson deserve to be here. A reason was given for the deletion and a suggestion made that a section on her might be added. If she uses the term natural landscape, then this might provide a better quotation than the one that was used originally.Rwood128 (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please no ad hominem complaints (e.g. "rant."). We are doing our best. Rstafursky (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Rstafursky (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What people do from a practical point of view does not change the meaning of natural landscape. Please remove references to national policies which vary widely over the short term and are separately codified by institutions. [Please clarify this vague statement. Rwood128 (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)] The natural landscape is a separate part and always will be a separate part of the landscape. Otherwise the term natural is meaningless. Also, remember that natural landscape is used to describe the world in the millions of years prior to man and it is used to describe other worlds both macroscopic and microscopic. Natural landscape is used also in literature to describe fictitious worlds and the future where people do not play a role. We must not have the tunnel vision of the moment. Rstafursky (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might a better heading be 'Restoration of the natural landscape'? The New Zealand example is most interesting and the article so far has focussed too much on the USA. Is this concept, natural landscape used in NZ? Rwood128 (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Errm. I've been collecting material for a section on New Zealand, but I'm getting ever more confused about what's going on here right now; and I feel it would be a bit pointless to start adding regional examples when the basics are in such turmoil. I don't really get Rstafursky's point of view - if a landscape with any degree of human influence is immediately "un-natural", then this should be a very short article, with an overview of the history of the idea and one statement "At this point, there is not a single natural landscape left on the planet." If it's a more nuanced concept, then regional examples, politics, interpretations, and related concepts are a must. So which is it to be?

As of right now, the entire rewilding and Gaia sections have just been ripped out without any attempt at editing them down to shorter versions linking to the main articles (which I think would have been a good idea, both were rather extensive ;). As I'm finding that my own notions are uncertain enough that I would have trouble delineating THE desirable form for the article and can only react to what I don't agree with (e.g., this kind of scorched ground editing); and as I don't feel like butting heads against someone who clearly has has a very strong (if foggily enunciated) angle; I think I'll desist from adding material for now. Elmidae (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rstafursky I have answered your point about Rachel Carson above. If there are errors in my recent edits, you have the right to change them, provided that you support this with citations. I still have great difficulty following what you say. To take one example.You say: "natural landscape is used to describe the world in the millions of years prior to man". What has that to do with now? Nature has been constantly changing, that is the natural landscape is never static.

Also, can you use concrete language to explain what this means: "Please remove references to national policies which vary widely over the short term and are separately codified by institutions". Whose "national policies"? what "institutions"? Are you referring to the section 'Europe'? If so, please provide better examples, along with some for the rest of the World, if possible. Rwood128 (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you provided details of the source or sources that underlies your thinking about natural landscape (just Carson?). I still don't think that the term natural landscape is properly defined or the ambiguity of the word natural adequately addressed. Rwood128 (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, many thanks for your clear, and supportive comments. I think for now we should try and resolve matters here on the Talk page, before any further edits are made. I'm totally confused by Rstafursky's attempts to define a natural landscape and hope that he can provide good, recent, science-based sources that will clarify matters. A section on New Zealand would be a great addition. Do you know Germaine Greer's White Beeches? This is about her restoration of rainforest in Australia. Rwood128 (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that what the article does well right now is defining the origin and history of the term. Where it fails, and where the current conflict comes from, is what interpretation we are/should be using today. Imposing one overarching interpretation does not seem justified... whose definition is the "right" one? I'd argue that interpretations differ regionally, hence this is best treated in regional sections. Any section on "Restoring the natural landscape" also needs to reflect the different interpretations of the term (e.g. pre-European? pre-Human? just independently self-regulating? All of these are variously being used). If we could clear up this point - present one interpretation, or present the variety - that would be a great step forward.

(Re Greer, I didn't know she had written about environmental topics. Now there's a woman with a strong agenda. Can't see any treatment by her as likely to be uncontroversial ;) (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae and Rstafursky, maybe something like this needs to be added:

A natural landscape can be defined as, either:

• (1) The landscape or environment that existed at some early time before humanity's ancestors evolved from the apes, or
• (2) A landscape or environment, existing now, that is free from human interference and artifacts, and where as much as possible of the residue from past interference has been removed.

Elmidae and Rstafursky, both definitions are my wording and it would be much better if quotations from reliable sources were found in their place. Indeed definition no.1 is an unreliable guess based on what I believe Rstafursky has said. Rstafursky please amend as necessary (but with evidence this time, please) Rwood128 (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

REVISION OF THE ABOVE (13 March)

A natural landscape is, either

• (1) An existing landscape or environment, where so far there has been little disturbance by human activity, or
• (2) A landscape or environment, where a natural equilibrium has re-established itself, following the removal of all human artifacts and the effects of past human interference, as far as is now possible.^{[note 5]}

Various natural events, along with the actions of animals, insects, plants, etc,. and not just people, alter the natural landscape. Environmentalists, however, emphasise the especially destructive impact of people's activities on the natural landscape in the past 250 years since the Industrial Revolution. Some environmentalists see the destruction beginning even earlier with farming practices.^[25]

ADDITION TO ABOVE (All to replace the first part of the current lede)

Matters are complicated by the fact that the words nature and natural have more than one meaning. On the one hand there is the main dictionary meaning for nature: "The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations".^[26] On the other hand there is the growing awareness, especially since Charles Darwin, of humanities biological affinity with nature.^[27]

With the the

holistic view of nature.^[31]

Additional comments and the Carson section below added. I will work on adding citations, over the next couple of days.[Done] Maybe some of this new stuff could be simplified and the discussion expanded later in the article? Rwood128 (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae and Rstafursky, as there has been no comments, I have presumed that there was general agreement with the above and gone and made a few changes. These in fact are more conservative, as some of my proposals were wrong. I have tried to keep the lede as short as possible. If anyone has major problems with these edits it might be more helpful to discuss them here first, given past history. Rwood128 (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rstafursky, I thought that the following might be incorporated somewhere in the article.

In Silent Spring Rachel Carson describes a roadside verge as it used to look: "Along the roads, laurel, viburnum and alder, great ferns and wildflowers delighted the traveler’s eye through much of the year" and then how it looks now following the use of herbicides: "The roadsides, once so attractive, were now lined with browned and withered vegetation as though swept by fire".^[32] Here the idea of a natural landscape is clearly defined, even though what Carson describes, in the first example, is a degraded natural landscape, which probably contains alien species and where the actual setting, is unnatural. All the same the idea of what makes landscape natural is there.

[Rachael Carson] is indeed describing the damaged landscape, but in the proper context of the natural landscape as a whole. She is not saying that the natural landscape is extinguished never to return. Yes, in many places and in modern times, but the natural productions (Jane Austen) remains always and remains always the same to our

I agree, and I am trying to convey this with: "the concept of what might constitute a natural landscape can still be deduced from the context". But I'm not totally happy with the lede and your comment is helpful. Perhaps 'Can still be deduced by our

mind's eye or imagination' might be better? ~I'll also check the Austen quotation. Rwood128 (talk

)

Also, please put any reference to impure natural landscapes not in the first paragraph and/or the introduction. Natural landscape is what is seen and it is not the minutia examined in a lab. Wikipedia is looking for a clear description.

We must settle on a first paragraph. Rstafursky (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the first paragraph (lede) is still a work in progress, and that emphasis should be on the ideal or pure natural landscape; the definition of natural landscape. But I'm following Carl O. Sauer, see note 1: "We may call the former, with reference to man, the original, natural landscape. In its entirety it no longer exists in many parts of the world, but its reconstruction and understanding are the first part of formal morphonology." Carl O. Sauer, "The Morphology of Landscape". University of California Publications in Geography, vol. 2, No. 2, October 12, 1925, p. 37". Do you want the Carson quotation moved to a later section? I like the idea of a concrete example here. The third sentence, however, is essential to clarify matters. Rwood128 (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rstafursky, do you have more up-to-date sources than Sauer (1925) and Carson (1962)? Who among contemporary environmental geographers, or scientists in similar fields, do you recommend? Rwood128 (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of further thought:

• I don't know if you are aware of
  WP:Lede
  ?

• Your comment: "A natural landscape is what is seen and it is not the minutia examined in a lab". This is highly ambiguous because what each person sees is not the same, and a botanist, in particular, will see a totally different landscape from anyone else. Also the so-called natural landscape could be heavily contaminated, but that might not be seen. The absence of plants, animals and insects can only be properly determined by scientific research not by just looking. Unless you can find a way to clearly express your ideas changes cannot be made. At least I can understand Carl O. Sauer, even though I'm not a geographer or conservationist. Rwood128 (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quotations, from President Obama, are not directly relevant to the sentence and should therefore be deleted. Perhaps a section on the politics of conservation is needed?Rwood128 (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. We must be encyclopedic and not distort the commonly accepted, non-trade usage. Those who wish to define trade-usage please go to or create at [natural resource] page.

Take a look at the history of common usage. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=natural+production%2Cnatural+feature%2Cnatural+landscape%2Ccultural+landscape%2C+built+landscape&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=10&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cnatural%20production%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bnatural%20production%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BNatural%20Production%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BNatural%20production%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cnatural%20feature%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cnatural%20landscape%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bnatural%20landscape%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BNatural%20Landscape%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BNatural%20landscape%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Ccultural%20landscape%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bcultural%20landscape%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BCultural%20Landscape%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BCultural%20landscape%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BCULTURAL%20LANDSCAPE%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cbuilt%20landscape%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bbuilt%20landscape%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBuilt%20Landscape%3B%2Cc0

Wikipedia must express the common meaning and also show distorted meanings in their proper context. Rstafursky (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow you here or the point of the Google link. What is "non-trade usage"? I suggested a section on the 'politics of conservation', both because you seemed interested in it. The Obama quotations were not presented within a context. A note should provide relevant addition information. That was clearly not the case here. Rwood128 (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rstafursky, can you clarify the following vague statement: "What people do from a practical point of view does not change the meaning of natural landscape. Please remove references to national policies which vary widely over the short term and are separately codified by institutions". Are you referring to the reference to natural landscape in Scotland and Switzerland? The Swiss National Park, for example seems closer to true conservation values than most North American, or British National Parks. Please try and be clearer, as it is exhausting trying to understand you! Concrete examples of how you would approach, whatever it is that you object to, is needed here. Rwood128 (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]